3.10 RULES FOR DELIBERATIONThese are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:
1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.
2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses [and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence] and these instructions.
3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone.
4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.
When the jury is to be involved in a penalty phase, omit the second sentence of paragraph 5.
5. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not, in accord with the law. It is the judge's job to determine a proper sentence if the defendant is found guilty.
6. Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous, that is, each juror must agree to the same verdict.
Give 7 if applicable.
7. It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about [his] [her] testimony.
8. Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias, or sympathy. Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and on the law contained in these instructions.
The elements of a crime, in this case shoplifting:
(1) Any person who shall wilfully and unlawfully take possession of any merchandise owned or held by and offered or displayed for sale by any merchant, store or other mercantile establishment with the intention and purpose of converting such merchandise to his own use without paying the merchant's stated price therefor shall be guilty of the crime of shoplifting and, upon conviction, shall be punished as is provided in this section.
- wilfully and unlawfully
- take possession of any merchandise owned or held by and offered or displayed for sale by any merchant, store or other mercantile establishment
- with the intention and purpose of converting such merchandise to his own use without paying the merchant's stated price
So you would have been all pro-slavery and been against jury nullification as it was applied to the Fugitive Slave act of 1950?
ReplyDeleteWow, what a stupid comment.
ReplyDeleteUnhinged fringe wrote:
ReplyDelete"So you would have been all pro-slavery and been against jury nullification as it was applied to the Fugitive Slave act of 1950?
I think this was a Freudian slip rather than a typo; the fugitive slave act of 1950?
How Jim Crow can one get?
So, fringie, did you have a question for Laci about the oh...civil rights legislation of the 1960's? Or are you still trying to refight the legal battles of the 19th century?
Typos aside, were jurors in the 1850's wrong to apply JN in fugitive slave act trials?
ReplyDeletefringie, the premises of slavery were wrong. The efforts, despite slavery being included in the constitution and subsequent legislation that was negotiated was also wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhich proves the founding father swere fallible, and which proves that the U.S. Constitution should be a living, growing, changing document, and is not properly carved in unchangeable stone.
In this regard, the 2nd Amendment provisions which you do not correctly identify in the first place, can and should evolve in a sane manner.
What intrigues me about the parallels between slavery and vast quantities of largely unregulated guns in this country, guns which harm people in this country at a vastly disproportionate rate than there is gun violence in industrialized, civlized societies everywhere else. The so-called 2nd Amendment propponents insist they are going to expand the presence of guns in our already too-violent society even further. Leading up to the civil war, the south insisted they were going to expand the states with slavery - notably the addition of Texas, where ILLEGAL U.S. IMMIGRANTS unlawfully annexed that Mexican territory for the principal purposes of expanding slavery.
Something all those movies glorifying the Alamo skip over.
The trend at the time was for slavery to be outlawed -notably led by the UK.
The slave proponents resisted that trend, but they were resisting progress, sanity, humanity and the future.
Same with guns. The idea of a nation of people armed to the teeth in order to defend themselves, or to oppose their lawful government is backwards, it is stupid, and sooner or later, it will, like slavery, fall because it is also based on false assumptions and premises which are ultimately destructive to human beings and a civilized society.
Which proves the founding father were fallible, and which proves that the U.S. Constitution should be a living, growing, changing document, and is not properly carved in unchangeable stone.
ReplyDeleteAh, the living breathing constitution gambit.
Laci's sure seems to be the one supporting the carved in stone line of constitutional law and to him, it is we rethuglican gun-nuts that are the ones changing the meaning of the 2nd amendment.
Unhinged, are you saying that I should be happy with the Heller-McDonald decisions which would deny you the use of firearms?
ReplyDeletenothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill
After all, even the Heller-McDonald decisions point out that:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
Heller-McDonald has no problems with registration requirements and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
But the real problem is that the institution which the Second Amendment was designed to protect no longer exists--unless of course, you are willing to join the National Guard to receive its protections.
I seriously doubt that you are making the point that the US should abolish its current military system and impose a Swiss style one.
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
ReplyDeleteWow, unhinged, did you understand what you just posted?
ReplyDeleteDistrict must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license
You just proved a couple of my points:
1) Heller-McDonald has no problems with registration requirements.
2) You are really stupid.
You are really stupid because you don't understand that what you present to support your position does not do so.
It supports mine, and you don't even understand why.
Or what you did.
Laci The Dog said...
ReplyDeleteWow, unhinged, did you understand what you just posted?
District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license
Ok so does the DC have to issue licenses and registration as a member of the militia or as an individual?
Last time I heard
Tom G. Palmer,
Shelly Parker,
Gillian St. Lawrence,
Tracey Ambeau,
George Lyon,
and
Dick Heller,
were not trying to register their weapons a members of the militia.
Yes, they were registering them as individuals.
ReplyDeleteBut, if the reason for a law ceases to exist, so does the law.
The reason for the Second Amendment is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Which is implemented by:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
One cannot exist without the other.
Each is as important as the other.
To say that one part can exist when the other is not valid is to admit that the reason for the law is no longer valid, therefore, the law is no longer valid.
Heller-McDonald shoots itself in the foot.